political perspectives from Joni Hudson-Reynolds, an African-American Mom

Church cancels lesbian’s funeral 15 minutes before it was to start…were they wrong?

I first saw this story on Twitter. I found the link below. Church cancels the funeral because they objected to one of the images to be shown on a video presentation. The decedant was shown proposing to her wife. The family refused to remove the image so the church said you can’t have the funeral here. Were they right? Well you have to ask why wasn’t the tape reviewed earlier? You also would have to ask What Would Jesus Do? Would he have turned a grieving family out of the temple? The church definitely has a right to their own beliefs but why didn’t they use this as an opportunity to minister? They could have expressed their opposition to the lifestyle without dismissing the family. Share your thoughts.

Comments

I thought I had a clear position on this one, but now I’m on the fence. There was certainly fault on both sides. If the tape was dropped off days earlier, it should have been reviewed much sooner than right before the funeral. It doesn’t seem very Christ-like towards the funeral attendees or the deceased to turn people away from a funeral on the spot. However, if the deceased’s family new of the church’s position regarding the display of the homosexual lifestyle being banned from the church, they should not have included it in the video or should have edited it. It’s a very sad situation overall.

What are “displays of homosexual lifestyle”. Videos of two people and their children? Give me a break. They are not pornographic tapes of two lesbians having sex, they are videos of two people next to each other. If they were gay, and everyone knew about it, including the mister, what does a photo add to their knowledge?

This is sheer bigotry disguised as Christianity. Period. The minister should be defrocked so he can go work for the Aryan Nation, where he belongs.

Displays of homosexual lifestyle? Here’s a clue. Two adults of the same gender kissing each on the lips. I find it quite interesting that as you list examples of the innocent photographs you make no mention of that. Perhaps in your world this is so typical that you didn’t find it worthy of mention but for many of us this is not something we regard as typical or normal behavior. If not regarding this as normal makes me a bigot, then so be it.

Bill, face it. You don’t like kissing other men, but when you say that everyone else shouldn’t do it, then your bigotry becomes obvious. A bigot by definition is a person who is intolerant towards those who are different. You meet the definition dead on. So why don’t you be honest and own it?

If I’m a pervert, then it’s based on a bigot’s definition of perversion. I have no problem owning that…

Search my comments here on this topic and show me where I’ve said that others should not commit any homosexual behavior. What I’ve said is that it is by definition abnormal. But if that is your preference have at it. Just don’t shove it down the throats of those who are not inclined. Pardon the pun.

The only one shoving attitudes down other’s throats is you, Bill, with your sanctimonious and exclusionary “there’s only one definition of normal sex, and it’s the one I participate in” belief system. I hate to break this to you, but homosexuality has been a part of normal sexual behavior since the dawn of time. It was perfectly normal in Ancient Greece, for instance. It’s only when your religion created itself that all of a sudden the missionary position between men and women (with men on top) became your so called norm.

So, if that’s your norm, fine. Have fun. But you are not the authority on “perversion” and your insistence that only your sexuality is normal is simple bigotry, because it excludes everyone else. I know you don’t like that, but it’s a fact. Not an opinion, a definitional fact. I’m sorry if you’re so close-minded that you can’t accept it, I wonder what else you’re close-minded about, and I feel sorry for the people in your life who have to deal with such a bigot.

Sorry S.I. I should not have made the assumption that you understood what a norm is. When I said by definition I was referring to statistical probability of the occurrence. My point has nothing to do with what ancient Greeks did.

As for being called a bigot, I don’t mind at all. In fact I’m somewhat disappointed when I’m not called a derogatory name by tolerant liberals because that is where they typically end up.